I'm ok with saying that you do the merge one day and have another day to cleanup layout test issues. Once we're not merging anymore though, I think we should just have 1-2 people oncall for 1 week at a time to keep the webkit(webkit.org) build green and to pull a new revision at least once a day (this latter part we can automate pretty easily as well). Ojan
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > Right. I just mean that the merger should take care to ensure that all of > the easy "fixes" are done and that the rest are accounted for somehow, > probably via regression bugs. If that's the current process, then great. > It just sounded like it wasn't. > -Darin > > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Pam Greene <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Define "resolved". Is filing and assigning a bug sufficient? It's not >> efficient to have whoever volunteers to do a merge personally pester people >> to fix the resulting test errors forever after. >> Whatever we do, we're going to have broken layout tests after a merge. >> Easy "fixes" -- re-baselining the ones that are actually all right, and >> filing specific bugs for the rest -- are definitely part of the merge task. >> But we don't want to put too much blame on the messenger: if a bunch of >> tests really break, or new tests don't pass, it's hardly the fault of the >> person who happened to bring the changes in. >> >> - Pam >> >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think the merger should be responsible for ensuring that any layout >>> test fallout from the merge gets resolved. This doesn't mean necessary >>> fixing everything, but rather it can be mean reaching out to others for >>> help. >>> I think the merger has to have incentive not to create a big mess with >>> the merge and to also make sure the job gets done completely :-) >>> >>> -Darin >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:06 AM, Scott Violet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> If we are ever to keep up to date with layout tests we need to come to >>>> a consensus on this. Here's the current set of proposals: >>>> >>>> 1. The merge becomes a two day activity. First day is merge, second >>>> day is fixing any failing layout tests. >>>> 2. We tag team people: first person does merge, next day another >>>> person fixes any failing layout tests. >>>> 3. One person for merge (like we do now), and failures are handled by >>>> owners of the layout tests. This assumes we can identify owners for >>>> buckets of layout tests so that folks know they are on the spot for a >>>> failing test. >>>> >>>> At this point we only care about regressions since 1.0, but that'll >>>> change soon. >>>> >>>> Can we make a decision on this at next weeks WebKit meeting? >>>> >>>> -Scott >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Brett Wilson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > I'm currently doing a 2-day merge rotation.As part of this, various >>>> > layout tests are regressing or getting added that I'm inserting into >>>> > the tests_fixable list. >>>> > >>>> > But, like every other layout test fixer, after my merges are done, >>>> > I'll finally go back to my old work and not think about it any more. >>>> > This is how we get a monotonically increasing list of broken tests at >>>> > the end of the tests fixable. I'm pretty certain this happens faster >>>> > than the tests are getting fixed because nobody wants to fix them. I'm >>>> > sort of tempted to just fix the ones my merge broke now, but that will >>>> > put me behind for my next merge, so I don't do that. >>>> > >>>> > I propose a different rotation schedule for WebKit merges. You would >>>> > do one day of merges, and the next day you would have to clean up all >>>> > the regressed and new layout tests your merge introduced. The layout >>>> > tests usually aren't that hard, so it normally wouldn't take the whole >>>> > day. This way we can be in a good steady state of WebKit merges. It >>>> > should also have a big advantage for fixing the broken tests since the >>>> > things that changed, the build numbers involved, etc. are still fresh >>>> > in the merger's head, and it won't be like approaching a random layout >>>> > test from the list with no context. >>>> > >>>> > The disadvantage of doing this is that we have to find people to do >>>> > the merges faster (we should probably formalize the schedule), and >>>> > you'll lose some advantage the second day of having all the >>>> > instructions and gotchas of the merge fresh in your mind. I was >>>> > thinking of a 3 day schedule (2 days of merging, 1 day of fixing) but >>>> > that seems too heavyweight for the people volunteering to do this. >>>> > >>>> > Anybody have any comments? >>>> > Brett >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
